Deeplinkshttps://www.eff.org/ru/rss/updates.xml/patents
EFF's Deeplinks Blog: Noteworthy news from around the internetruStupid Patent of the Month: Trolls Go After Sex Toy Manufacturershttps://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/07/stupid-patent-month-do-it-computer
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><img src="/files/2014/07/30/stupid-patent-square-2.jpg" alt="" class="image-right" height="286" width="286" /></p>
<p>Recently, a company called Tzu Technologies, LLC began suing makers of sex toys for infringement of <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US6368268B1/en">U.S. Patent No. 6,368,268</a>. This resulted in <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/teledildonics-patent-used-to-sue-six-nascent-cybersex-companies/">more</a> than a <a href="http://gizmodo.com/sorry-you-cant-have-any-more-sex-toys-because-of-this-p-1719816692">few</a> <a href="http://www.metafetish.com/2015/07/22/patent-troll-versus-everyone-teledildonics-patent-lawsuit/">news</a> <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/3049036/fast-feed/how-a-sex-toy-vs-patent-troll-war-could-affect-your-kickstarter">stories</a> (and probably a few snickers as well). But the case also shows how our broken patent system is preventing innovation in many spaces, including those we don’t traditionally think about. Looking closely at the patent, and specifically at what Tzu Technologies actually claims to own, it is clear that this patent, regardless of its exciting subject matter, deserves to be called stupid.</p>
<p>Tzu Technologies’ patent, titled “Method and Device for Interactive Virtual Control of Sexual Aids Using Digital Computer Networks” is a patent related to “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledildonics">teledildonics</a>.” Essentially, computer controlled sex toys.</p>
<p>Tzu Technologies <a href="https://search.rpxcorp.com/campaigns/36563">recently sued</a> (login req.) a bunch of small startups in the sex toy space, claiming they infringed this patent. Comingle, for example and according to their website, is a four-person team that is developing open-source sex technology. Also sued was Kickstarter, presumably for allowing another defendant, Holland Haptics, to raise money for their product the “<a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/396691740/hold-hands-online-when-you-miss-someone">Freeble</a>.” </p>
<p>As <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-09-28/features/9309280044_1_cd-rom-interactive-computer-software-virtual-valerie">this 1993 Chicago Tribune</a> article shows, the idea of remotely stimulating a partner was nothing new in 1998 (the year the application for the patent was filed). Nor was it unknown how to do it. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Howard_Stern_Show#1981.E2.80.9385:_Washington_and_WNBC_New_York">Howard Stern</a> (in)famously engaged in some of his own teledildonics in the 1980s, that was later <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IwznFszsJA">reenacted</a> [NSFW] in his 1997 movie “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Parts_(1997_film)">Private Parts</a>.”</p>
<p>Given this history, you might expect that, in 1998, patent applicants would need to come up with some new and non-obvious way of using a computer to control a sex toy. But like many patents that we have labeled “Stupid,” that’s not what happened. Or at least, that’s not what the inventors <i>claimed</i>.</p>
<p>Below is claim 8 of the patent, which Tzu Technologies seems to be asserting. This claim is ridiculously broad. Annotations, in bold, have been added to show just how broadly it can be read:</p>
<blockquote><p>8. A stimulation system comprising:</p>
<p><b>[a] </b>a hand-operable input device <b>[a microphone] </b>for generating a command signal <b>[electrical signal]</b> in response to an input <b>[sound wave] </b>received from a first user;</p>
<p><b>[b] </b>a first user interface <b>[the radio broadcast system] </b>connected to said input device <b>[the microphone]</b>, said first user interface generating a control signal <b>[radio waves] </b>based upon the command signal <b>[electrical signal]</b>;</p>
<p><b>[c] </b>a second user interface <b>[a radio] </b>remotely located from said first user interface<b> [the radio broadcast system]</b>, said second user interface receiving the control signal <b>[the radio waves]</b>; and,</p>
<p><b>[d] </b>a stimulation device <b>[a stereo speaker]</b> receiving the control signal <b>[the radio waves] </b>from said second user interface<b> [the radio]</b>, said stimulation device imparting stimulation to a second user in response to the control signal <b>[you get the idea]</b>.</p></blockquote>
<p>Perhaps the Patent Office should have given Howard Stern a patent, given that the patent explicitly suggests that the “input device” can be a microphone.</p>
<p>Ultimately, claim 8 of this patent is nothing more than the <i>idea</i> of teledildonics, dressed up in “input devices” “signals” and “interfaces.” That’s what makes this patent, and these lawsuits, so frustrating. There was nothing novel, nonobvious, or even <i>patentable</i> about this claim. It never should have issued. Doing it with a computer (literally) <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/supreme-court-smashes-do-it-on-a-computer-patents-in-9-0-opinion/">does not</a> make something patentable.</p>
<p>More and more, everyday items are incorporating software and networking technology. Unfortunately, that means more and more everyday items are at risk of being said to infringe overbroad, vague patents that never should have issued. As this patent shows, the problems with the patent system have the potential to impact many diverse fields, and until we find a way for small companies to quickly and efficiently shut down these patent trolls, we will continue to hurt innovators who are merely trying to make life more interesting.</p>
<p> </p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/patent">Patents</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/ru/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims">Patent Trolls</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/issues/innovation">Innovation</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Stupid+Patent+of+the+Month%3A+Trolls+Go+After+Sex+Toy+Manufacturers+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fstupid-patent-month-do-it-computer" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fstupid-patent-month-do-it-computer&t=Stupid+Patent+of+the+Month%3A+Trolls+Go+After+Sex+Toy+Manufacturers" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fstupid-patent-month-do-it-computer" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Stupid Patent of the Month%3A Trolls Go After Sex Toy Manufacturers&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fstupid-patent-month-do-it-computer" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:00:17 +0000Vera Ranieri87108 at https://www.eff.orgPSA: Shipping and Transit, LLC and Electronic Communication Technologies LLC Are Not New Players To the Patent Troll Gamehttps://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/07/psa-shipping-and-transit-llc-and-electronic-communication-technologies-llc-are-not
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Have you recently received a patent demand letter or been hit by a lawsuit from either “Shipping and Transit, LLC” or “Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC”? Despite their current SEO-unfriendly names that make it difficult to find information, we want you to know that there’s lots of information out there related to these trolls, just under different names. </p>
<p>It is important that those on the receiving end of these trolls’ patent demands can find the resources they need. To that end, more information useful against both of these trolls can be found by searching for ArrivalStar (instead of “Shipping and Transit, LLC”) or Eclipse IP (instead of “Electronic Communication Technologies LLC”). And even though the names are different, the documents linked below show that for practical purposes the new trolls are closely related to the old trolls.</p>
<p>The connection between ArrivalStar and Shipping and Transit, LLC is not clear. Information about ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino Technologies, Ltd, respectively (collectively, “ArrivalStar”) is hard to come by. According to a recent ArrivalStar <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_v_connected_telematics_complaint.pdf">complaint</a>, ArrivalStar S.A. is based in Luxembourg and Melvino in the British Virgin Islands. Other ArrivalStar litigation documents indicate that <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_v_meitek_interrogatory_responses.pdf">Peter Sirianni</a> and <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_response_to_motion_to_compel.pdf">Martin Kelly Jones</a> were affiliated with ArrivalStar. Mr. Sirianni’s affiliation with ArrivalStar goes back to at least 2012: <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_v_meitek_interrogatory_responses.pdf">he signed</a> a court document on behalf of ArrivalStar, indicating he is an officer or agent of ArrivalStar. Jones is a <a href="https://patents.google.com/?assignee=arrivalstar&amp;inventor=Martin+Kelly+Jones,martin+jones">named inventor</a> on ArrivalStar’s patents, and a <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_response_to_motion_to_compel.pdf">litigation document</a> indicates he was a witness on behalf of ArrivalStar back in 2008.</p>
<p>A recent <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_mot_to_change_case_caption.pdf">district court filing</a> reveals that Shipping and Transit, LLC is now the owner of the patents previously licensed and owned by ArrivalStar. According to a document filed with the Florida Secretary of State, Shipping and Transit LLC’s <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/shipping_and_transit_florida_sos_record.pdf">members</a> are Peter Sirianni and Martin Kelly Jones. Based on these documents, we believe that although there was likely a technical change in “ownership,” the people "authorized to manage" Shipping and Transit, LLC appear to be the same people that were associated with ArrivalStar.</p>
<p>As for Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC, the connection to the well-known troll Eclipse IP is easier. A document filed with the Florida Secretary of State shows that Eclipse IP merely <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/eclipse_ip_2015_florida_sos_record.pdf">changed their name</a> to Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC.</p>
<p>It’s also worth noting that the ArrivalStar and Eclipse IP share personnel and an address. Documents show that Peter Sirianni is currently affiliated with both Shipping and Transit, LLC and Electronic Communication Technologies LLC. In their state corporate filings, the two companies both list Mr. Sirianni as a member or authorized representative and the companies have the same address in Boynton, Florida as their principal address. The relationship apparently goes back further. A Florida Secretary of State filing shows Peter Sirianni’s affiliation with Eclipse IP goes back to at least to 2010. <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/eclipse_ip_2010_florida_sos_record.pdf">The filing</a> states that Mr. Sirianni is a manager of Eclipse IP. In addition, the prosecuting attorney for ArrivalStar’s patents is the <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/stupid-patent-month-eclipse-ip-casts-shadow-over-innovation">attorney-inventor</a> of Eclipse IP’s patents.</p>
<p>We don’t know why ArrivalStar sold its patents to Shipping and Transit, LLC, or why and Eclipse IP changed its name to Electronic Communication Technologies LLC. But we do know that it decreases the visibility of the previous entities’ trolling campaigns when people search for information on the Internet using the new generic names. Hopefully this post will help people find the information they need.</p>
<p>Below we’ve included data and links to some important information for both ArrivalStar (Shipping and Transit, LLC) and Eclipse IP (Electronic Communication Technologies LLC). We encourage people to link to this page, increasing the visibility of the links between the former entities (ArrivalStar and Eclipse IP) with the new entities (Shipping and Transit, LLC and Electronic Communication Technologies LLC, respectively). </p>
<p><b><u>ArrivalStar/Shipping and Transit, LLC Information</u></b></p>
<p>Known U.S. Patents or Applications: 5,400,020; 5,444,444; 5,623,260; 5,648,770; 5,657,010; 5,668,543; 6,278,936; 6,313,760; 6,317,060; 6,363,254; 6,363,323; 6,411,891; 6,415,207; 6,486,801; 6,492,912; 6,510,383; 6,618,668; 6,683,542; 6,700,507; 6,714,859; 6,741,927; 6,748,318; 6,748,320; 6,763,299; 6,763,300; 6,804,606; 6,859,722; 6,904,359; 6,952,645; 6,975,998; 7,030,781; 7,089,107; 7,191,058; 7,400,970; 60/039,925; 60/115,755; 60/122,482.</p>
<p>Known Foreign Patents and Applications: AT 257265; AT 273547; AU 2608700; AU 3393300; AU 3998401; AU 6284999; AU 6404799; AU 6453598; AU 7391696; BR 0007537; BR 0008670; BR 9808005; CA 2267206; CA 2283239; CA 2360288; CA 2363556; CA 2521206; CA 2528647; CN 1345413; DE 60104824; DE 69631255; EP 0929885; EP 0966720; EP 1261902; EP 1264296; MXPA01008914; WO 9814926; WO 0019171; WO 0019170.</p>
<p>Known litigation in the United States filed by <a href="https://search.rpxcorp.com/ent/63356-arrivalstar-sa">ArrivalStar</a> or <a href="https://search.rpxcorp.com/ent/944634-shipping-and-transit-llc">Shipping and Transit, LLC</a> (login required).</p>
<p>EFF articles related to ArrivalStar/Shipping and Transit, LLC:</p>
<ul><ul><li><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/patent-troll-arrivalstar-back-extorting-money-hiding-facts-and-operating-shadows"><i>Patent Troll ArrivalStar is Back, Extorting Money by Hiding Facts and Operating in the Shadows</i></a>, March 15, 2015;<i></i></li>
<li><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/arrivalstar-how-not-make-friends-and-influence"><i>ArrivalStar: How to NOT Make Friends and Influence People</i></a>, June 27, 2013;<i></i></li>
<li><a href="//localhost/%E2%80%A2%09https/::www.eff.org:press:releases:eff-throttles-notorious-patent-used-threaten-public-transit-systems"><i>EFF Throttles Notorious Patent Used to Threaten Public Transit Systems</i></a>, June 26, 2013;</li>
<li><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/thirty-examples-prior-art-combat-arrivalstars-patent">30+ Examples of Prior Art to Help Combat ArrivalStar's Patent</a>, Dec. 12, 2012;</li>
<li><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/patent-reform-stalls-congress-trolls-roll">Patent Reform Stalls in Congress As Trolls Roll On</a>, May 15, 2014;</li>
<li><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/help-eff-bust-dangerous-jones-patent">Help EFF Bust the Dangerous Jones Patent</a>, Mar. 1, 2012.</li>
</ul></ul><p><a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_assignment_of_patents_to_s_and_t.pdf">Documentation</a> of change of ownership of patents from ArrivalStar to Shipping and Transit, LLC.</p>
<p>Link to <a href="https://trollingeffects.org/search/node/arrivalstar">ArrivalStar</a>, now Shipping and Transit, LLC, information at Trolling Effects. </p>
<p><b><u>Eclipse IP/Electronic Communication Technologies LLC Information</u></b></p>
<p>Known U.S. Patents or Applications: 7,119,716; 7,064,681; 7,319,414; 7,479,899; 7,113,110; 7,482,952; 7,561,069; 7,479,900; 7,876,239; 7,479,901; 7,504,966; 7,538,691; 7,528,742 ; 8,068,037; 8,232,899; 8,242,935; 8,284,076; 8,368,562; 8,362,927; 8,564,459; 8,711,010; 8,531,317; 9,013,334; 9,019,130; 14/590,528; 14/592,199; 14/635,380.</p>
<p>Known Foreign Patents and Applications: None.</p>
<p>Known litigation in the United States filed by <a href="https://search.rpxcorp.com/ent/88054-eclipse-ip-llc">Eclipse IP</a> (as of July 20, 2015, it does not appear that Electronic Communication Technologies LLC has filed any lawsuits in its own name) (login required).</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6853951770054804078&amp;q">Decision</a> invalidating certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,064,681; 7,113,110; and 7,119,716 for failing to recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.</p>
<p>EFF articles related to Eclipse IP/ Electronic Communication Technologies LLC:</p>
<ul><ul><li><a href="https://www.eff.org/en-gb/deeplinks/2015/06/scott-horstemeyer-abandons-defamation-case-against-eff"><i>Scott A. Horstemeyer Abandons Defamation Case Against EFF</i></a>, June 5, 2015;</li>
<li><a href="https://www.eff.org/en-gb/deeplinks/2015/06/eff-sued-defamation-patent-lawyer-aprils-stupid-patent-month-scott-horstemeyer"><i>EFF Sued for Defamation by Patent Lawyer Behind April's Stupid Patent of the Month, Scott Horstemeyer</i></a>, June 2, 2015;</li>
<li><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/stupid-patent-month-eclipse-ip-casts-shadow-over-innovation"><i>Stupid Patent of the Month: Eclipse IP Casts A Shadow Over Innovation</i></a>, Apr. 30, 2015.</li>
</ul></ul><p>Documentation of <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/eclipse_ip_2015_florida_sos_record.pdf">name change</a> from Eclipse IP to Electronic Communication Technologies LLC.</p>
<p>Link to <a href="https://trollingeffects.org/search/node/eclipse">Eclipse IP</a>, now Electronic Communication Technologies LLC, information at Trolling Effects.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-files field-type-file field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Files:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_assignment_of_patents_to_s_and_t.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=1718940" title="arrivalstar_assignment_of_patents_to_s_and_t.pdf">ArrivalStar Assignment of Patents to Shipping and Transit, LLC</a></span></div><div class="field-item odd"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_mot_to_change_case_caption.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=190403" title="arrivalstar_mot_to_change_case_caption.pdf">ArrivalStar Motion to Change Case Caption</a></span></div><div class="field-item even"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_response_to_motion_to_compel.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=33437" title="arrivalstar_response_to_motion_to_compel.pdf">ArrivalStar Response to Motion to Compel</a></span></div><div class="field-item odd"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_v_connected_telematics_complaint.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=247596" title="arrivalstar_v_connected_telematics_complaint.pdf">ArrivalStar v. Connected Telematics Complaint</a></span></div><div class="field-item even"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/arrivalstar_v_meitek_interrogatory_responses.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=325582" title="arrivalstar_v_meitek_interrogatory_responses.pdf">ArrivalStar v. Meitek Interrogatory Responses</a></span></div><div class="field-item odd"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/eclipse_ip_2010_florida_sos_record.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=43682" title="eclipse_ip_2010_florida_sos_record.pdf">Eclipse IP 2010 Florida SoS Record</a></span></div><div class="field-item even"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/eclipse_ip_2015_florida_sos_record.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=148953" title="eclipse_ip_2015_florida_sos_record.pdf">Eclipse IP 2015 Florida SoS Record Changing Name to ECT LLC</a></span></div><div class="field-item odd"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/21/shipping_and_transit_florida_sos_record.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=50086" title="shipping_and_transit_florida_sos_record.pdf">Shipping and Transit LLC Florida SoS Record</a></span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/patent">Patents</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/ru/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims">Patent Trolls</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/issues/innovation">Innovation</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=PSA%3A+Shipping+and+Transit%2C+LLC+and+Electronic+Communication+Technologies+LLC+Are+Not+New+Players+To+the+Patent+Troll+Game+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fpsa-shipping-and-transit-llc-and-electronic-communication-technologies-llc-are-not" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fpsa-shipping-and-transit-llc-and-electronic-communication-technologies-llc-are-not&t=PSA%3A+Shipping+and+Transit%2C+LLC+and+Electronic+Communication+Technologies+LLC+Are+Not+New+Players+To+the+Patent+Troll+Game" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fpsa-shipping-and-transit-llc-and-electronic-communication-technologies-llc-are-not" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=PSA%3A Shipping and Transit%2C LLC and Electronic Communication Technologies LLC Are Not New Players To the Patent Troll Game&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fpsa-shipping-and-transit-llc-and-electronic-communication-technologies-llc-are-not" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:45:35 +0000Vera Ranieri86975 at https://www.eff.orgPatent Reform Under Attack, But Needed More Than Everhttps://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/07/patent-reform-under-attack-needed-more-ever
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Recent <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/technology/248055-house-delays-vote-on-patent-reform-bill">reports</a> from Congress suggest that patent reform might be taken off the table for the summer. This bad news arrives at the same time as a new study showing that <a href="https://lexmachina.com/2015-first-half-patent-case-filing-trends/">patent trolls are more active than ever before</a>. Opponents of reform are trying derail efforts to tackle trolls by insisting that any legislation must include <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/congress-stop-trying-limit-effs-ability-challenge-patents">unnecessary changes</a> to procedures for challenging patents the the Patent Office. We urge Congress to remain focused on the real problem of patent litigation abuse.</p>
<p>Much of the recent debate has focused on post-grant procedures at the Patent Office. Earlier this year, EFF used one of these procedures to <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-busts-podcasting-patent-invalidating-key-claims-patent-office">successfully challenge</a> key claims from the infamous podcasting patent. We brought our challenge using a relatively new procedure called <i>inter partes </i>review<i> </i>or IPR. Opponents of patent reform are insisting that any legislating include changes <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/congress-stop-trying-limit-effs-ability-challenge-patents">reducing access to IPRs</a> and making them <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/strong-patent-act-prime-example-weak-reform">less effective</a> as a way to invalidate bad patents. Some have suggested this is the pharmaceutical industry’s <a href="http://fortune.com/2015/06/05/patent-reform-pharma/">poison pill</a> strategy for defeating patent reform.</p>
<p>It’s frustrating that the poison pill tactic has been somewhat effective. There is no crisis with post-grant review procedures like IPRs. A single hedge fund (acting in partnership with infamous patent troll <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/times-profiles-patent-troll">Erich Spangenberg</a>) filed <a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/04/08/is-kyle-bass-abusing-the-patent-system/id=56613/">some IPRs</a>, which people accused of being part of an apparent strategy to manipulate stock prices. It <a href="http://danravicher.tumblr.com/post/123390414198/are-patent-challenges-paying-off-for-kyle-bass">doesn’t appear</a> that this worked especially well for the hedge fund and there is no indication that it will become a significant problem. Meanwhile, the high technology industry is being inundated with thousands and thousands of patent troll lawsuits. Patent troll litigation has been rampant for years and is <a href="https://lexmachina.com/2015-first-half-patent-case-filing-trends/">only getting worse</a>. Rather than give in to the pharmaceutical industry’s scaremongering about an isolated event, Congress should tackle the severe problem that it has been considering for over a year.</p>
<p>Other criticisms of the bills before Congress fall apart on close inspection. We have published <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/busting-myths-and-countering-misinformation-campaign-against-patent-reform">another blog post</a> today countering some of the misinformation that opponents are spreading about the Innovation Act. We’ve been here before. Back in April 2014, the Senate seemed very close to a deal when Harry Reid <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/senator-leahy-kills-patent-reform-now">pulled the plug</a>. Patents returned to the agenda this year and encouraging bills passed both the <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/patent-act-senates-solid-start-reform-patent-system">Senate Judiciary Committee</a> and the <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/house-panel-advances-major-patent-troll-legislation-20150611">House Judiciary Committee</a>. It’s important not to give up on the campaign for legislative patent reform. Legislation is hard and can take multiple attempts. The <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/09/patent-reform-legislation-set-become-law-will-make">America Invents Act</a> took almost five years to make its way through Congress.</p>
<p>Contact your representative and tell them to <a href="https://act.eff.org/action/stop-patent-trolls-support-the-innovation-act-of-2015">pass the Innovation Act</a>. The proposed legislation <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/why-innovation-act-good-startups-and-small-business">won’t hurt small businesses</a> or legitimate patent owners. Rather, it is targeted at the worst actors and will cut back on rampant abusive litigation from patent trolls.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/patent">Patents</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/ru/taxonomy/term/11132">Legislative Solutions for Patent Reform</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/issues/innovation">Innovation</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Patent+Reform+Under+Attack%2C+But+Needed+More+Than+Ever+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fpatent-reform-under-attack-needed-more-ever" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fpatent-reform-under-attack-needed-more-ever&t=Patent+Reform+Under+Attack%2C+But+Needed+More+Than+Ever" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fpatent-reform-under-attack-needed-more-ever" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Patent Reform Under Attack%2C But Needed More Than Ever&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fpatent-reform-under-attack-needed-more-ever" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Thu, 16 Jul 2015 19:01:27 +0000Daniel Nazer86930 at https://www.eff.orgBusting Myths and Countering Misinformation From the Campaign Against Patent Reformhttps://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/07/busting-myths-and-countering-misinformation-campaign-against-patent-reform
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>We’ve seen an all-out assault on the side of the opposition to kill the House’s <a href="https://act.eff.org/action/stop-patent-trolls-support-the-innovation-act-of-2015">Innovation Act</a> and the Senate’s <a href="https://act.eff.org/action/tell-your-senator-to-support-the-patent-act">PATENT Act</a>. As a result, patent reform stands on shaky ground in Congress.</p>
<p>A common trend has emerged in the anti-reform camp’s rhetoric, though: lies, fabrications, and untruths. We’re frustrated in seeing these myths arise time and again, and we’re going to make an effort to dispel them.</p>
<p>For example, an email sent earlier this week to small businesses in the high-tech space in Connecticut urged owners to oppose the Innovation Act. Much of the email matches the general opposition’s rhetoric, and, well, it’s just plain wrong:</p>
<blockquote><p>They’re probably going to pass this bill, and you probably will face loser pays and other threatening clauses as a result. The result as of the last time I analyzed this (mid-June) will be that your patent will cost more to win, be susceptible to more post-issuance challenges, and if you want to legally asserted an infringement you better win, because if you lose the presumption will be that you will pay all the winner’s costs. You’ll also have to post a bond to make sure you have the money to pay the winner’s costs. Your simple message should be that the bill would be bad for small high tech businesses such as yours, and American innovation in general. They’re attacking trolls by treating all small business innovators as trolls.</p></blockquote>
<h3><b>Will my patent actually “cost more to win”?</b></h3>
<p>No. Absolutely nothing in the bill addresses the cost of acquiring a patent. The Innovation Act is litigation reform targeted at frivolous suits—it does not affect the process of getting a patent.</p>
<h3><b>Will I be susceptible to more post-issuance challenges?</b></h3>
<p>No. Nothing in the Innovation Act makes it easier to challenge patents. In fact, the most recent version of the bill that passed the House Judiciary Committee included provisions making it more difficult to file certain kinds of post-grant challenges.</p>
<h3><b>If I lose a lawsuit, will I have to pay the winner’s costs?</b></h3>
<p>It depends. But courts would not impose fees simply because a patent owner was unsuccessful. The Innovation Act only shifts fees if a court <i>concludes that the lawsuit was not reasonably justified in law and fact</i> (Sec. 3(b) Fees and Other Expenses). The court also has discretion to make exceptions under special circumstances, such as severe economic hardship to an inventor. The bill targets cases so unreasonable that they should never have been brought. Good-faith actors have no legitimate reason to be concerned.</p>
<h3><b>Do I have to post a bond to make sure I have the money to pay the winner’s costs?</b></h3>
<p>No. There is <i>no language</i> <i>at all</i> in the Innovation Act about posting a bond. Previous drafts of the bill included a bond provision, but these were dropped more than a year ago.</p>
<h3><b>Is the bill bad for small businesses? Does it treat everyone like patent trolls?</b></h3>
<p>No. The reason EFF has supported the Innovation Act over the last couple years is because we think it does a great job of targeting patent trolls and other bad actors <i>without</i> implicating good actors. We’ve said it time and again, but it deserves to be repeated: if you have a quality patent and are asserting it in good faith, the act does not target you.</p>
<h3><b>Will the bill’s customer stay provision leave me without a remedy?</b></h3>
<p>Absolutely not. The Innovation Act includes a sensible provision that allows customers to have patent cases against them stayed when there is parallel litigation against the manufacturer of the accused product. Mass <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/hey-patent-trolls-pick-someone-your-own-size">troll lawsuits against customers and end users</a> have become a big problem. The Innovation Act would allow manufacturers to step in and defend their customers. Opponents of reform have <a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/11/why-customer-stays-are-terrible-for-the-patent-system/id=57602/">claimed</a> that this would sometimes leave patent owners “without a remedy.” But that is simply false. The bill only requires courts to stay customer suits when there is <i>already</i> another lawsuit where the manufacturer or supplier of the accused product is a party (Sec. 5(b)(1) Customer Suit Exception). And the customer must agree to be bound by the results of that suit (Sec. 5(b)(2)). It’s plainly not true, as some have asserted, that patent owners could be forced to seek relief against overseas corporations that might not be subject to jurisdiction.</p>
<p>While we appreciate our opponent’s optimism that “they’re probably going to pass the bill,” the rest of the message is poor form. It’s easy to foment negativity toward reform when you simply lie about what’s in the proposed legislation. Startups, small businesses, and inventors should take pause when they receive such missives. Take some time to <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=2848E2C2-F705-4A03-800C-64930626A395">read the bills in question</a>, and you’ll discover the criticism crumbles away, leaving language that can only help.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/patent">Patents</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/ru/taxonomy/term/11132">Legislative Solutions for Patent Reform</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims">Patent Trolls</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Busting+Myths+and+Countering+Misinformation+From+the+Campaign+Against+Patent+Reform+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fbusting-myths-and-countering-misinformation-campaign-against-patent-reform" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fbusting-myths-and-countering-misinformation-campaign-against-patent-reform&t=Busting+Myths+and+Countering+Misinformation+From+the+Campaign+Against+Patent+Reform" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fbusting-myths-and-countering-misinformation-campaign-against-patent-reform" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Busting Myths and Countering Misinformation From the Campaign Against Patent Reform&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F07%2Fbusting-myths-and-countering-misinformation-campaign-against-patent-reform" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:23:21 +0000Adi Kamdar86929 at https://www.eff.orgStupid Patent of the Month: Wetro Lan Sues Entire Network Security Industry With Expired Garbage Patenthttps://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/06/stupid-patent-month-wetro-lan-sues-entire-network-security-industry-expired
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><img src="/files/2014/07/30/stupid-patent-square-2.jpg" alt="" class="image-right" height="286" width="286" />Like all of the patents we highlight in our Stupid Patent of the Month series, this month’s winner, <a href="https://www.google.com/patents/US6795918">U.S. Patent No. 6,795,918</a>, is a terrible patent. But it earns a special place in the Pantheon of stupid patents because it is being wielded in one of most outrageous trolling campaigns we have ever seen.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.google.com/patents/US6795918">Patent No. 6,795,918</a> (the ’918 patent), issued from an application filed in March 2000, and is titled: “Service level computer security.” It claims a system of “filtering data packets” by “extracting the source, destination, and protocol information,” and “dropping the received data packet if the extracted information indicates a request for access to an unauthorized service.” You may think, wait a minute, that’s just a firewall. By the year 2000, firewalls had been <a href="http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/ac174/ac200/about_cisco_ipj_archive_article09186a00800c85ae.html">around for a long time</a>. So how on earth did this applicant get a patent? A good question.</p>
<p>Here’s how you get a patent on a firewall more than a decade after firewalls were invented. Step 1: File a description of your so-called invention that is nothing more than mundane details about how firewalls work. Step 2: Add some language saying <a href="https://sarahbrand26.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/obi-wan-kenobi.jpg">this is totally not just a firewall</a>. Step 3: Claim a firewall. With any luck, the Patent Office will just <a href="http://www.silverdoctors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/move-along.jpg">wave you through</a>. </p>
<p>To be fair, the ’918 patent suggests a firewall system that is not “user configurable.” The idea is that unsophisticated home users might misconfigure their firewalls so it is better to give them a system they cannot mess up. Just like a real firewall, only dumber! The patent also hedges its bets by claiming a system that is “substantially free from user adjustment,” whatever that means. Even if that was a new idea in 2000, this is not actually a technological improvement. It’s kind of like putting a padlock on the front hood of a car and then saying you’ve invented a new kind of car.</p>
<p>The ’918 patent spent its entire life in well-deserved obscurity. Indeed, the original inventor chose to <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/06/26/us_patent_6795918_has_expired.png"><i>let the patent expire</i></a> in September 2012 by not paying the maintenance fee. This is unsurprising. Why waste money keeping a terrible patent alive? Usually, that is where the story would end. Unfortunately, even an expired garbage patent can be useful in the hands of a <a href="https://trollingeffects.org/faq#t58n257">patent troll</a>.</p>
<p>In January of 2015, a newly-formed company called Wetro Lan, LLC, purchased the ’918 patent. Shortly after that, it began filing dozens of lawsuits in the <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-go-texas-its-not-bbq">Eastern District of Texas</a> against companies that provide, you guessed it, firewall technology. The troll can do this because damages for patent infringement <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/286">go back six years</a>. So, technically, it can still demand damages for alleged infringement that took place from mid-2009 until the patent expired in September 2012 (though the defendants might have a <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/eff-federal-circuit-dont-reward-patent-troll-lies-wait">good laches defense</a>). Wetro Lan has sued just about everyone who sells a product relating to network security, from Avaya to ZyXEL.</p>
<p>To take one suit as an example, Wetro Lan has sued <a href="http://www.hacom.net/">Hacom, LLC</a>, a small company based in Santa Ana, California, that provides embedded hardware, software, and consulting for implementation of open-source applications. In its <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/wetro-lan-v-hacom-complaint">complaint</a>, Wetro Lan says that Hacom’s <a href="http://www.hacom.net/catalog/phoenix-it-100-appliance">Phoenix IT-100 Appliance</a> and its other routers directly infringe the ‘918 patent. But Hacom doesn’t sell anything remotely like the dumb, non-configurable, firewall discussed in the ’918 patent. They sell advanced products which enable users to configure settings through a web-based interface or at the command line. In fact, since Hacom’s products incorporate free software (<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html">free as in freedom</a>), they are configurable down to the source code level.</p>
<p><img src="https://eff.org/files/2015/06/26/patent_no_6795918_figure_1.png" alt="" class="image-left" height="250" width="350" />There’s no way that Hacom’s products infringe a patent that, even if it were valid, would cover only the dumbest of firewalls. But if Wetro Lan is like most trolls, that’s not the game here. The likely point of this litigation is to extract a nuisance settlement. We have significant doubts that Wetro Lan would ever litigate one of its cases on the merits, and win.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The <a href="http://www.thetexaslawoffice.com/">attorneys</a> behind the Wetro Lan campaign are the same lawyers who sued our client in the <a href="https://www.eff.org/cases/garfum-v-reflections-ruth">Garfum v. Reflections by Ruth</a> case. We desperately need <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/legislative-solutions-patent-reform">legislative reform</a> to stop more abusive litigation from these trolls. Such reform should include fee shifting, heightened pleading requirements, and venue reform to stop shell company trolls dragging innovators to the Eastern District of Texas. Without help from Congress, trolls will keep shaking down small companies like Hacom.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/patent">Patents</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/ru/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims">Patent Trolls</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/issues/innovation">Innovation</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Stupid+Patent+of+the+Month%3A+Wetro+Lan+Sues+Entire+Network+Security+Industry+With+Expired+Garbage+Patent+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fstupid-patent-month-wetro-lan-sues-entire-network-security-industry-expired" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fstupid-patent-month-wetro-lan-sues-entire-network-security-industry-expired&t=Stupid+Patent+of+the+Month%3A+Wetro+Lan+Sues+Entire+Network+Security+Industry+With+Expired+Garbage+Patent" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fstupid-patent-month-wetro-lan-sues-entire-network-security-industry-expired" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Stupid Patent of the Month%3A Wetro Lan Sues Entire Network Security Industry With Expired Garbage Patent&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fstupid-patent-month-wetro-lan-sues-entire-network-security-industry-expired" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:08:19 +0000Daniel Nazer86525 at https://www.eff.orgEFF Asks Court to Order Patent Bully to Pay Attorneys’ Feeshttps://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/06/eff-asks-court-order-patent-bully-pay-attorneys-fees
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Earlier this year, together with <a href="http://durietangri.com/">Durie Tangri</a>, EFF stepped in to defend a photo hobbyist facing a patent suit. The patent owner, Garfum.com Corporation, claimed to have invented competitions on social networks where users vote for the winner. Garfum recently <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/releases/victory-photo-hobbyist-prevails-over-junk-patent-bully">abandoned its lawsuit</a>. Yesterday, we filed a <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/motion-fees">motion</a> asking the court to declare the case ‘exceptional’ and award our client attorneys’ fees.</p>
<p>Back in February, we filed a <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/motion-dismiss-3">motion to dismiss</a> Garfum’s claims, arguing that its patent was invalid because it claimed an abstract idea implemented on conventional computers and networks. Garfum responded with an <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/garfum-opposition">opposition brief</a> arguing that its so-called invention could not be implemented with “conventional database” technology. This supremely silly argument (databases have been used to count votes for decades), was explicitly contradicted by <i>Garfum’s own patent</i>. The <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/US8209618">patent itself</a> states, twice, that “conventional database packages” could be used.</p>
<p>Little wonder then, that after the court scheduled a hearing date for our motion, Garfum quickly <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/releases/victory-photo-hobbyist-prevails-over-junk-patent-bully">dismissed its claims</a> rather than defend its patent before a judge. The idea that you could patent an abstract idea, find innocent enthusiasts online and demand settlement money—and then slink away once challenged and before the court issues a ruling—goes against any sense of fair play.</p>
<p>We hope that the court awards attorneys’ fees. Fee awards will encourage other defendants to stand up to weak patent suits instead of paying nuisance settlements. As many others have <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/opinion/make-patent-trolls-pay-in-court.html?_r=0">observed</a>, this is one of the key ways that courts can deter abusive patent litigation.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/patent">Patents</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/ru/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims">Patent Trolls</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/issues/innovation">Innovation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-related-cases field-type-node-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Cases:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/cases/garfum-v-reflections-ruth">Garfum v. Reflections By Ruth</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=EFF+Asks+Court+to+Order+Patent+Bully+to+Pay+Attorneys%E2%80%99+Fees+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Feff-asks-court-order-patent-bully-pay-attorneys-fees" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Feff-asks-court-order-patent-bully-pay-attorneys-fees&t=EFF+Asks+Court+to+Order+Patent+Bully+to+Pay+Attorneys%E2%80%99+Fees" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Feff-asks-court-order-patent-bully-pay-attorneys-fees" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=EFF Asks Court to Order Patent Bully to Pay Attorneys%E2%80%99 Fees&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Feff-asks-court-order-patent-bully-pay-attorneys-fees" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:44:17 +0000Daniel Nazer86463 at https://www.eff.orgIn Another Post-Alice Brief, EFF Urges Federal Circuit to Apply Lawhttps://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/06/another-post-alice-brief-eff-urges-federal-circuit-apply-law
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It has now been just over a year since the Supreme Court issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/bad-day-bad-patents-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-down-abstract-software"><i>Alice v. CLS Bank</i></a>. Since then, over <a href="http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/2015/06/the-one-year-anniversary-the-aftermath-of-alicestorm.html">100 cases</a> have looked at whether granted patents meet the standards set in <i>Alice</i>. The result has been overwhelmingly on the side of finding patents invalid. <i>Alice</i> has become a crucial tool for those fighting against overbroad patents on abstract ideas.</p>
<p>EFF, along with Public Knowledge, filed an <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/06/23/mcro-v-bandai_-_pk_and_eff_amicus.pdf">amicus brief</a> on Friday asking the Federal Circuit to apply <i>Alice </i>in the latest in a slew of cases on appeal after a district court invalidated a patent.</p>
<p>The case is <i>McRO v. Bandai</i>, or more appropriately, <i>McRO v. anyone who animates faces</i>, since McRO seems to have sued pretty much the entire animation industry.<i> </i>The patent owner lost in the district court, when Judge Wu, in a very thorough and thoughtful opinion, <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/06/23/mcro_v_bandai_dist_ct_opinion.pdf">held</a> that the patent was on nothing more than the abstract idea of “automated rules-based use of morph targets and delta sets for lip-synchronized three-dimensional animation.”</p>
<p>At first blush, that may seem like it’s not an abstract idea. But as we explain in our brief, the Supreme Court has long rejected patenting this type of innovation. Why? Because at most, what McRO is trying to patent is the <i>idea</i> of using mathematical rules about how our mouths move. Not only that, even if particular rules were in the claims (they’re not), that too would not be patentable. The Supreme Court long ago <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12542933152070861616">made clear</a> that Pythagoras could not have patented the Pythagorean theorem just by saying that it could be used in surveying. Similarly, mathematically describing how our mouths may be a scientific breakthrough. But just like the Pythagorean theorem, it is not patentable.</p>
<p>The patent owner <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/06/23/mcro-v-bandai_bsa_amicus.pdf">is supported</a> on appeal by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_(The_Software_Alliance)">the BSA</a>, a trade group made up of some of the biggest software companies in the country. Companies, for example like IBM, that sometimes engage in <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2013/11/04/ibms-new-strategies-patent-trolling-and-dodgy-advertising/">their own</a> troll-like behavior. The BSA argued that McRO’s patent should not be invalidated, as doing otherwise takes the <i>Alice</i> decision too far.</p>
<p>But despite what the BSA claims, this case is <b><i>not </i></b>an over-application of <i>Alice</i>, and more importantly<i> </i>is <b><i>not</i></b> the death knell for the software industry. McRO’s patent is invalid under <i>Alice </i>and the case law that came before it. In addition, as we discuss in our brief, the software industry is simply not an industry that significantly relies on the patent incentive to innovate. So <i>even if</i> this case meant the end of all software patents (though it doesn’t), the software industry would continue to be just as innovative as before.</p>
<p>Certain patent owners are doing their best to limit the Supreme Court’s <i>Alice</i> decision. We hope the Federal Circuit rejects the BSA’s fear mongering and faithfully applies <i>Alice</i> to invalidate a patent that should never have been granted.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-files field-type-file field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Files:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/06/23/mcro_v_bandai_dist_ct_opinion.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=214494">mcro_v_bandai_dist_ct_opinion.pdf</a></span></div><div class="field-item odd"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/06/23/mcro-v-bandai_-_pk_and_eff_amicus.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=189331">mcro-v-bandai_-_pk_and_eff_amicus.pdf</a></span></div><div class="field-item even"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/06/23/mcro-v-bandai_bsa_amicus.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=190604">mcro-v-bandai_bsa_amicus.pdf</a></span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/patent">Patents</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/ru/issues/innovation">Innovation</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=In+Another+Post-Alice+Brief%2C+EFF+Urges+Federal+Circuit+to+Apply+Law+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fanother-post-alice-brief-eff-urges-federal-circuit-apply-law" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fanother-post-alice-brief-eff-urges-federal-circuit-apply-law&t=In+Another+Post-Alice+Brief%2C+EFF+Urges+Federal+Circuit+to+Apply+Law" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fanother-post-alice-brief-eff-urges-federal-circuit-apply-law" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=In Another Post-Alice Brief%2C EFF Urges Federal Circuit to Apply Law&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fanother-post-alice-brief-eff-urges-federal-circuit-apply-law" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:10:17 +0000Vera Ranieri86457 at https://www.eff.orgIf At First You Don’t Succeed, Don’t Try Again With Patent Lawhttps://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/06/if-first-you-dont-succeed-dont-try-again-patent-law
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Printers aren’t all that expensive. Ink for the printers, on the other hand, can cost <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/08/the-high-cost-of-wasted-printer-ink/index.htm#graphic">more than fine Champagne</a> and tends to be far less delicious. <a href="https://www.lexmark.com/en_us.html">Lexmark</a>, in yet another attempt in a long line of schemes, is trying to use patent law to make sure it stays that way.</p>
<p>In a case called <i>Lexmark v. Impression Products</i>, Lexmark is trying to use patent law to prevent customers from lawfully getting cheaper ink. Lexmark argues that by slapping a “notice” on the side of a patented ink cartridge, they can limit consumers to using the cartridges only once under the threat of patent infringement.</p>
<p>EFF, together with Public Knowledge, the Open Source Hardware Association, the Digital Right to Repair Coalition, and Public Citizen filed an <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/06/22/eff_amicus_-_lexmark_v_impression_prods.pdf">amicus brief</a> at the Federal Circuit arguing that Lexmark should not be allowed to distort patent law in order to prevent people from lawfully reusing what they already own. Once Lexmark sells its cartridge, it should not be able to use patent law to further control the market.</p>
<p>The issue is one of “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_of_intellectual_property_rights">patent exhaustion</a>.” This is the patent law version of “first sale,” the doctrine in copyright law that says that once a consumer buys a copy of a work, she owns it, and can do what she wants with that copy. Patent law is similar. Once a patent owner sells a product, it cannot later claim its use is infringing.</p>
<p>In our brief, we argue that patent law doesn’t allow Lexmark to control its products through a “single use” notice after making an authorized sale. We argue this is true whether the product was originally sold abroad or whether it was originally sold in the United States. Unfortunately, case law from the Federal Circuit holds the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12286024812384725077">exact</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9154252378272249539">opposite</a>. But we believe, as do many others, that <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13486316684325795728">more</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17500823935382016021">recent</a> Supreme Court decisions have overruled the previous, anti-consumer Federal Circuit decisions.</p>
<p>This is <a href="https://www.eff.org/cases/lexmark-v-static-control-case-archive">not the first time</a> Lexmark has tried to use intellectual property laws to unfairly harm consumers. In a case called <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18217592195742478731&amp;scilh=0"><i>Lexmark v. Static Control</i></a>, the Sixth Circuit rejected Lexmark’s attempts to use copyright and the DMCA to control the reuse of its printer cartridges. As we argue in our brief, the Federal Circuit shouldn't allow Lexmark to do with patent law what has already been rejected in copyright law. </p>
<p>The Constitution grants Congress the power to enact copyright and patent laws in order to “promote the progress” of science and art. We hope the Federal Circuit confirms that patents are not granted to allow patent owners to control what a consumer decides to do with their lawfully purchased ink cartridge.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-files field-type-file field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Files:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/06/22/eff_amicus_-_lexmark_v_impression_prods.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=132994">eff_amicus_-_lexmark_v_impression_prods.pdf</a></span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/taxonomy/term/11241">Defend Your Right to Repair!</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/ru/patent">Patents</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/issues/innovation">Innovation</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=If+At+First+You+Don%E2%80%99t+Succeed%2C+Don%E2%80%99t+Try+Again+With+Patent+Law+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fif-first-you-dont-succeed-dont-try-again-patent-law" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fif-first-you-dont-succeed-dont-try-again-patent-law&t=If+At+First+You+Don%E2%80%99t+Succeed%2C+Don%E2%80%99t+Try+Again+With+Patent+Law" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fif-first-you-dont-succeed-dont-try-again-patent-law" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=If At First You Don%E2%80%99t Succeed%2C Don%E2%80%99t Try Again With Patent Law&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fif-first-you-dont-succeed-dont-try-again-patent-law" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:19:03 +0000Vera Ranieri86446 at https://www.eff.orgFederal Circuit Strikes Its Own Blow Against Overbroad Software Patentshttps://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/06/federal-circuit-strikes-its-own-blow-against-overbroad-software-patents
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Today, in <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/06/16/williamson-v-citrix.pdf"><i>Williamson v. Citrix</i></a>, the Federal Circuit overruled its ill-advised case law that has been one of the primary drivers of overbroad software patents. The court finally recognized that patent applicants cannot bypass certain limits on patent rights solely by avoiding magic words. EFF filed an <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2014/12/18/eff_amicus_williamson_v_citrix.pdf">amicus</a> brief <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/eff-asks-federal-circuit-strike-down-overbroad-software-patents">urging the court</a> to do just that.</p>
<p>Imagine the Wright brothers, after they invented their airplane, filed for a patent claiming “a machine for flying.” Essentially claiming a machine for <i>what it does</i> rather than <i>how it does it</i>. This is known as “functional claiming.”</p>
<p>Under previous Federal Circuit precedent, there was a very strong presumption that would give the Wright brothers the rights to <i>any </i>“machine for flying,” including things like the rocket or the Space Shuttle. But the Wright brothers only invented <i>one </i>type of machine for flying: why would they get to own things they didn’t invent?</p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court, in the early 20th century, saw the danger of these types of “functionally” defined inventions. As it explained in the seminal 1946 case <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11314922392942969919&amp;scilh=0"><i>Halliburton v. Walker</i></a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><i>In this age of technological development there may be many other devices beyond our present information or indeed our imagination which will perform that function and yet fit these claims. And unless frightened from the course of experimentation by broad functional claims like these, inventive genius may evolve many more devices to accomplish the same purpose.</i></p></blockquote>
<p>In 1952, in what many commentators believe to be a response to <i>Halliburton</i>, Congress revised the Patent Act to allow functional claiming, but did so <i>with an important caveat</i>. That <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112">caveat</a> allowed inventors to claim their inventions functionally, yet the scope of the patent rights would be limited to only what the inventor actually <i>structurally described</i> in the patent specification (or its equivalents). The Wright brothers could claim their “machine for flying,” limited to what they actually described and things that were essentially the same, but they couldn’t stop someone from building the Space Shuttle.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit interpreted the law extremely narrowly and made it far too easy for patent applicants to avoid it. Essentially, as long as a patent applicant avoided using the magic words (“means for”), the court would not apply the law that limited the claims to what was actually described. Under previous Federal Circuit law, since “machine” wasn’t one of the court’s magic words, the Wright brothers could claim to own the Space Shuttle.</p>
<p>Today, finally, the Federal Circuit overruled that case law and recognized the statute means what it says: if you claim something functionally, <i>regardless of whether you use magic words</i>, you’re likely limited to what you actually describe.</p>
<p>Restrictions on functional claiming will not solve all problems with software patents. But they will make it harder for applicants to come up with one way to solve a problem and then monopolize <i>all </i>ways of solving that problem, a tactic that is <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117302">notoriously widespread</a> with software patents. The court’s future decisions will hopefully apply <i>Williamson</i> to the types of claims used by most software patents. This decision has the potential to go a long way in ensuring that these claims are appropriately limited. </p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-files field-type-file field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Files:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/06/16/williamson-v-citrix.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=347059">williamson-v-citrix.pdf</a></span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/patent">Patents</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/ru/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims">Patent Trolls</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Federal+Circuit+Strikes+Its+Own+Blow+Against+Overbroad+Software+Patents+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Ffederal-circuit-strikes-its-own-blow-against-overbroad-software-patents" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Ffederal-circuit-strikes-its-own-blow-against-overbroad-software-patents&t=Federal+Circuit+Strikes+Its+Own+Blow+Against+Overbroad+Software+Patents" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Ffederal-circuit-strikes-its-own-blow-against-overbroad-software-patents" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Federal Circuit Strikes Its Own Blow Against Overbroad Software Patents&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Ffederal-circuit-strikes-its-own-blow-against-overbroad-software-patents" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:20:25 +0000Vera Ranieri86374 at https://www.eff.orgJudges in Texas Unfairly Impose New Requirements on Patent Defendantshttps://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/06/judges-texas-unfairly-impose-new-requirements-patent-defendants
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>One of the best weapons a patent troll has in extorting an undeserved settlement is the cost of litigation. If a defendant knows that a case will drag on for several months, or even years, and will require her to spend significant resources to prevail, she is more likely to give in to pressure from a patent troll.</p>
<p>Recently, the Eastern District of Texas made that weapon even sharper.</p>
<p>Last year, the Supreme Court decided <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7784134755284986738"><i>Alice v. CLS Bank</i></a>, making clear that abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer are <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/bad-day-bad-patents-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-down-abstract-software">not patentable</a>. Many defendants have been filing “motions to dismiss” claims of patent infringement, based on the <i>Alice </i>decision. Oftentimes, these motions come early in the case, and work to quickly and efficiently invalidate a patent that never should have issued. Since <i>Alice</i>, this strategy has been quite successful, with defendants winning <a href="http://www.bakerbotts.com/ideas/publications/2015/4/ip-report">more than 50%</a> of the motions to dismiss filed in 2015.</p>
<p>But certain judges in the Eastern District of Texas now <a href="http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/view_document.cgi?document=22244">require</a> parties to ask <i>permission </i>to file these motions early in the case, and must show “good cause” for that permission. This is despite a clear <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12">procedural <i>right</i></a><i> </i>for a defendant to file such motions, and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9815140750432136306">case law</a> from the Federal Circuit that recognized such motions as proper.</p>
<p>The law <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_83">does not allow</a> a judge to make rules inconsistent with the Federal Rules. But the judges have now imposed this requirement, and when approximately 25% of all patent cases are filed in the Eastern District of Texas, this is a big deal.</p>
<p>We’ve written about this issue before. The Eastern District of Texas already requires parties to ask permission to file summary judgment, contrary to the Federal Rules that grant parties the <i>right </i>to file. As we <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-go-texas-its-not-bbq">previously explained</a>, we don’t think the judges in the Eastern District of Texas can impose this requirement.</p>
<p>The Eastern District of Texas also limits the procedural rights of parties by <a href="http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/view_document.cgi?document=22243">requiring</a> the parties to turn over any “relevant” information to the other side without being asked for it. The Federal Rules <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26">require</a> courts to take into account the burden and expense of turning materials over, in light of how relevant it actually is. The Eastern District turns this on its head by forcing disclosure of it all, no matter what the cost, how much is at stake, or just how important it actually is.</p>
<p>These sort of rules unfairly hurt defendants. They increase costs, prolong litigation, and help patent trolls to use those consequences to extort undeserved money from defendants. It is <a href="http://www.pennlawreview.com/print/?id=466">not a coincidence</a> that patent trolls are choosing to file in the Eastern District of Texas, to the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23753311">economic benefit</a> of the region. We urge the Eastern District of Texas to bring its courts back into line with the Federal Rules. </p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/patent">Patents</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/ru/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims">Patent Trolls</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/ru/issues/innovation">Innovation</a></div></div></div><div class="share-links" style="margin-bottom:10px"><br/>Share this: <a href="https://twitter.com/home?status=Judges+in+Texas+Unfairly+Impose+New+Requirements+on+Patent+Defendants+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fjudges-texas-unfairly-impose-new-requirements-patent-defendants" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter16.png" alt="Share on Twitter" /></a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fjudges-texas-unfairly-impose-new-requirements-patent-defendants&t=Judges+in+Texas+Unfairly+Impose+New+Requirements+on+Patent+Defendants" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" /></a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fjudges-texas-unfairly-impose-new-requirements-patent-defendants" onclick="javascript:window.open(this.href, '', 'menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600');return false;"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png" alt="Share on Google+"/></a> <a href="http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Judges in Texas Unfairly Impose New Requirements on Patent Defendants&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fru%2Fdeeplinks%2F2015%2F06%2Fjudges-texas-unfairly-impose-new-requirements-patent-defendants" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png" alt="Share on Diaspora" /></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;||&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/join" style="background-color:#cc0000; color:#ffffff; text-decoration:none; cursor:pointer; padding:5px 8px; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border-radius:8px; text-shadow: 1px 1px #660000; text-transform:uppercase;">Join EFF</a></div>Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:12:09 +0000Vera Ranieri86266 at https://www.eff.org